{ "id": 3090092, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error v. Thomas R. Eaton, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Eaton", "decision_date": "1924-07-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "504", "last_page": "508", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 Ill. App. 504" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "307 Ill. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5090390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/307/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ill. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4795942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/268/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 Ill. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5012486 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/302/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 Ill. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4900043 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/281/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 Ill. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5113987 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/311/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ill. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4729384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/259/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 Ill. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4717583 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/257/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 Ill. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5585796 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/195/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5472381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ill. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4751108 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/262/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Ill. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3432121 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/250/0345-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 381, "char_count": 9008, "ocr_confidence": 0.533, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.36546763923302095 }, "sha256": "e44bcfb2306831d7bac8956c33708d6a8e3e6764d89850b054e2d539679b0c70", "simhash": "1:fff7eddce6cf313f", "word_count": 1503 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:31.592753+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error v. Thomas R. Eaton, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barry\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error was tried and convicted under an information which charged that on July 28, 1923, at and within the County of Effingham in the State of Illinois, he \u201cdid unlawfully possess three \u2022barrels of mash', the same being property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor contrary to the statute, etc. \u2019 \u2019 Motions to quash the indictment, for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, were overruled.\nIt is argued that the statute does not make it a crime to have or possess property designed for the illegal manufacture of liquor and that it does not provide a penalty therefor. This contention is without merit. Section 28 of the Act [Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 29] provides: \u201cIt shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor intended for use in violating this Act or property designed for the illegal manufacture of liquor, and no property right shall exist in any such liquor or property.\u201d Section 33 [Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 34] fixes the penalty at fine or imprisonment. Section 39 [Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 40] provides that it shall not be necessary to include in the information any defensive negative averments but it shall be sufficient to state that the act complained of was then and there unlawful. The averment in the information that the property was designed for the manufacture of liquor contrary to the statute is equivalent to the statutory provision \u201cdesigned for the illegal manufacture of liquor.\u201d If an indictment or information charges the offense substantially in the language of the statute it is sufficient, providing the statute itself sufficiently describes the offense. People v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345; People v. Covitz, 262 Ill. 514.\nWe cannot determine whether the information was sufficient to apprise plaintiff in error of the nature and cause of the accusation under section 9 [Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 9], or whether his right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure under section 6 of the Bill of Rights was denied him as it would be necessary to construe those constitutional provisions. The construction of such provisions is for the Supreme Court. Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. 1921, ch. 110, \u00b6 118; Lester v. People, 150 Ill. 408-426; Bratsch v. People, 195 Ill. 165-166; Denison Cotton Co. v. Schermerhorn, 257 Ill. 128-130; Glos v. People, 259 Ill. 332-338; People v. Castree, 311 Ill. 392. Parties who bring their eases to the Appellate Court and assign errors which may be passed upon by that court are held to have waived constitutional questions which can bo reviewed only by the Supreme Court. Drtina v. Charles Tea Co., 281 Ill. 259. As plaintiff in error has assigned and argued errors of which this court has jurisdiction it is our duty to pass upon them instead of transferring the cause to the Supreme Court. Edwardsville v. Central Union Tel. Co., 302 Ill. 362.\nIt is argued that the court erred in admitting in evidence the complaint for a search warrant, the warrant and the sheriff\u2019s return thereon. If they were offered or received in evidence, the abstract should show it but it does not. An abstract of record must be full and complete and the court will not explore the record to find errors to sustain the assignments of error. People v. Yuskauskas, 268 Ill. 328; People v. Armour, 307 Ill. 234.\nIt is insisted that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. Plaintiff in error offered no evidence. That on behalf of the People is to the effect that the sheriff and his men found three barrels of mash containing 150 gallons in the basement of plaintiff in error\u2019s residence; that the sheriff asked him what he was doing with all this stuff and he replied that he was going to make a little beer. A licensed pharmacist cooked some of the mash and it produced a liquor containing more than one-half of one per cent alcohol. Section 2 of the Act [Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 2] defines \u201cbeer\u201d as an intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half of one per cent of alcohol by volume. When plaintiff in error admitted that he had the mash for the purpose of making beer and when a portion of it was cooked and a liquid containing more than that quantity of alcohol was produced the conclusion is irresistible that plaintiff in error had in his possession property designed for the illegal manufacture of intoxicating liquor.\nIn the light of the undisputed evidence the jury would not have been warranted in returning a verdict other than that of guilty as charged in the indictment. That being true it is not necessary to determine the accuracy of the instructions. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barry" } ], "attorneys": [ "Byron Piper, for plaintiff in error.", "Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, and Paul Taylor, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error v. Thomas R. Eaton, Plaintiff in Error.\n1. Intoxicating liquors \u2014 possession of materials for manufacture as crime. In a prosecution under an information charging that defendant \u201cdid unlawfully possess three barrels of mash, the same being property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor contrary to the statute, etc.,\u201d a contention that the possession of property designed for the illegal manufacture of liquor is not a violation of the statute, and that no penalty is provided therefor, is without merit in view of the provision of section 28 of the Prohibition Act, Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 29, providing that it shall be unlawful to have or possess \u201cproperty designed for the illegal manufacture of liquor\u201d and of section 33, Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 34, fixing the penalty at fine or imprisonment.\n2. Intoxicating liquors \u2014 sufficiency of information for possession of materials for manufacture. An averment in an information charging violation of the Prohibition Act by defendant in that he \u201cdid unlawfully possess three barrels of mash, the same being property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor contrary to the statute,\u201d was equivalent to the statutory provision \u201cdesigned for the illegal manufacture of liquor.\u201d\n3. Criminal procedure \u2014 indictment in language of statute When sufficient. If an indictment or information charges an offense substantially in the language of the statute it is sufficient, providing the statute itself sufficiently describes the offense.\n4. Criminal procedure \u2014 constitutional sufficiency of indictment is not open in Appellate Court. In a prosecution for violation of the Prohibition Act the Appellate Court cannot determine whether the information was sufficient to apprise defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him under section 9, Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 43, \u00b6 9, or whether his right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure under section 6 of the Bill of Rights was denied as, to do so, would require construction of those constitutional provisions, which is for the Supreme Court.\n5. Criminal procedure \u2014 waiver of constitutional questions hy going to Appellate Court. Parties who bring their cases to the Appellate Court and assign errors which may be passed upon by that court waive constitutional questions which can be reviewed only by the Supreme Court.\n6. Criminal procedure \u2014 duty of Appellate Court to review case instead of transferring. Where a plaintiff in error has assigned and argued errors which may be passed upon by the Appellate Court it is the duty of the court to pass upon them instead of transferring the cause to the Supreme Court because of constitutional questions being also involved.\n7. Criminal procedure \u2014 abstract of record must be full and complete. An abstract of the record must be full and complete and the court will not explore the record to find errors to sustain the assignment of errors.\n8. Intoxicating liquors \u2014 sufficiency of evidence of possession of materials for manufacture. In a prosecution for violation of the Prohibition Act where defendant offered no evidence and that on behalf of the people was to the effect that the officers found 150 gallons of mash on defendant\u2019s premises; that he told the sheriff he was going to make a little \u201cbeer,\u201d which is defined in the act to be an intoxicating liquor; and that when a licensed pharmacist cooked some of the mash he produced a liquor containing more than one-half of one per cent of alcohol, the conclusion is irresistible that defendant had in his possession property designed for the illegal manufacture of intoxicating liquor.\n9. Criminal procedure \u2014 questions unnecessary on review where case is clear. When, in the light of undisputed evidence given in a criminal prosecution, the jury would not have been warranted in returning a verdict other than that of guilty, it is not necessary to determine the accuracy of instructions given.\nError by defendant to the County Court of Effingham county; the Hon. Barney Overbeck, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1924.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 7, 1924.\nByron Piper, for plaintiff in error.\nEdward J. Brundage, Attorney General, and Paul Taylor, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0504-01", "first_page_order": 532, "last_page_order": 536 }